The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 12th March 2014
  #121
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
So we'll fool them this time. As a test. And next time we'll really improve the audio because we know that they'll buy it?

They're paying based on the testimonials of their heroes. They've heard nothing.

The musicians in this video should be ashamed.
So Neil Young waved his magic wand, and every one of these musicians fell under his spell and forked over their integrity by appearing in his video (with the artist's permission, of course)?
Because they all need money so bad?
None of them can tell the difference between a cd and 24/192?
They were just hypnotized?
Every one of them said they could tell the difference IN A CAR!!!!!
When I master from analog to DSD or 24/192, then bounce to 16/44.1, everyone in my studio can tell the difference.
Every time.
Old 12th March 2014
  #122
The cruelest thing about watching that promotional video is how all these leading lights of the music industry come across as such dopey, shallow morons.

There's also a negative side.
Old 12th March 2014
  #123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
So hype and deception is a step forward in this case?



This product will be a complete failure if only the people that can hear the difference, buy it.
No, not a step forward at all, just another attempt to get the baby boomers to buy the same recordings all over again! Many of them still have some money!
Old 12th March 2014
  #124
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Who's fooling who? If you say 24 bit doesn't sound better my ears say you are the one fooling yourself. But you know full well it does, so what gives? I really don't get what you're on about here, other than ranting angrily at people supposedly tricking the public.....if they are smuggling in snake oil hifi bs products, sure I see that, but the actual 24bit files being snake oil, really? That's a proper McEnroe moment, man. You cannot be serious!!

Like I say, I haven't seen any video so can't comment. I don't care about any video, I already know 24 bit sounds better.
I recommend you ABX a 24-bit clip and a 16-bit clip; the only difference between the two will be the noise floor (which you can't hear in most music). Claiming otherwise is snakeoil.
Old 12th March 2014
  #125
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Early21 View Post
No, not a step forward at all, just another attempt to get the baby boomers to buy the same recordings all over again!
key word: buy

it's been a decade or more since that word has really applied to the 'acquisition' of music for one's collection.
Old 12th March 2014
  #126
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
key word: buy

it's been a decade or more since that word has really applied to the 'acquisition' of music for one's collection.
And a million a day says someone wants to do some buying.
Old 12th March 2014
  #127
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Yes. And that's an analog record. I would bet that capturing analog records that were mixed analog and transferred to 24bit 192kHz should be better.

But we still have a bunch of all digital records to consider.
What percentage of recorded music in the last 100 years is analog based and what percent is digitally based?
Every one of those analog recordings has the potential to sound fantastic in 24/192, or mediocre in 16/44.1.
Neil Young can't do squat about stuff that was recorded badly in the first place.
But he can, and is, doing something about music that was transferred badly to digital in the first place.
Old 12th March 2014
  #128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Being that the kickstarter itself was unnecessary, (Neil Young can't get 800k?) isn't it possible that the results are manipulated as well.

Just a thought.

This looks like a success but they have less than 6,000 backers.
But I think that is part of the coolness that he's trying to generate. 6,000 cool people are in on it. Of course he doesn't need the money.
Old 12th March 2014
  #129
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
The 24 bit mixed file sounds better than the 16 bit one?

I'm not talking about tracking and mixing. Just the final output.
To me 24bit throws a different shape. More space in there. It somehow condenses at 16bit. More dense. I suppose more different than better in a way, but definitely not the same.
Old 12th March 2014
  #130
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Let's run a test.

Anyone record anything at 192kHz 24 bit that they want to share?
Test this.

The Problem with A-B'ing and Why Neil Young is Right about Sound Quality. | Tape Op - the Creative Music Recording Magazine
Old 12th March 2014
  #131
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

How do we get a record recorded at 48kHz to sound better at 192kHz?
We don't. We get the file at the original 24 bit/48kHz instead of a 320mp3. Worthwhile to my mind.
Old 12th March 2014
  #132
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
To me 24bit throws a different shape. More space in there. It somehow condenses at 16bit. More dense.
That's you listening with your brain, not your ears. Try an ABX!
Old 12th March 2014
  #133
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
That's you listening with your brain, not your ears. Try an ABX!
Sure is. I also hear differences in DAWs my friend, and I bet you won't like that either.
Old 12th March 2014
  #134
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

How silly.

There are two arguments here.

- There is a problem with MP3/AAC and we need to solve it.

- There is a problem with 44.1/16 and we need to solve it.

Most of us can hear a difference between mp3/aac, at least in specific situations. I am not certain anyone can hear the difference between 44.1/16 and 192/24.

If the difference is subtle enough that you cannot tell in a/b/x testing, why would we assume a difference actually exists? I get the point of the article, but it doesn't make sense to me.
Old 12th March 2014
  #135
Lives for gear
 
tekis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
Again, I urge everyone not to miss the spirit here. WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN. It is coming from an earnest, artist-driven attempt to honor music. With all of the music technology of the last couple decades, the people with the purse strings are almost never concerned with the artist's perspective.

I mean, you've noticed that liner notes disappeared without anybody objecting, right? How could that happen?, you have to wonder. It happened because the people behind iTunes did not give a f**k.

There are people on this site who can debate the minutiae of an AMS Neve 1084 vs. BAE 1084 and yet something like this is greeted with snark and cynicism. It's a bummer.

- c
Well-put. I, for one, am anxious to hear this and let my ears be the judge.
Old 12th March 2014
  #136
Lives for gear
 
s.d.finley's Avatar
Have the PONO makers said what kind of DA convertors they have in the unit?
Old 12th March 2014
  #137
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
And you don't think the label will upsample it to get that sticker on there for you?

"Oh. We need a bit of eq and compression. We better upsample it before adding any effects".

Bam. Here's your 192kHz master.
Sure they will. But I for one am not really interested in making The Stones sound better, I am interested in NEW music that is being recorded at higher quality NOW being made available en masse at the high quality it was made at. And if this here initiative helps just a little bit in the norm shifting away from mp3's to better sound I will be pleased.

At best I think it will make producers change tactics as they find someone with an extremely well sounding record released in high quality do well......to compete then mashing up something that shreeks nicely in an mp3 won't cut it, so the race to the bottom could maybe become a race to the top again somehow......
Old 12th March 2014
  #138
Gear Maniac
 
ThetaAlpha970's Avatar
 

Silver Sonya gets it.

same old
convenience vs. quality
Why not let the pendulum swing the other way for once?

Just surprised by the cynicism.
Aren't you excited when he says its an "artist led initiative to take back sound quality" ?
Old 12th March 2014
  #139
Lives for gear
 
steveswisher's Avatar
 

OMG... Pono! You sound soooo amazing!

Old 12th March 2014
  #140
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I don't think they were paid. I think that they all like a respect Neil and they are probably suffering from confirmation bias. Combined with group peer pressure.

Again. You're talking about from an analog source. I'm not. Most records these days are all digital. 99% of them are 96k or below. And most of those are 48k or below.

How do we get a record recorded at 48kHz to sound better at 192kHz?

I'm not sure you can.
I take a 44.1 kHz file in my DAW and go from the analog out to my mastering chain.
Then I capture in DSD (5.6 mhz).
That's what Sony invented DSD for, archival purposes.
Direct Stream Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know if it's the low pass filters in DSD playback, or what, but it sure sounds better to me.
But better is subjective, right?
C
Old 12th March 2014
  #141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
And you don't think the label will upsample it to get that sticker on there for you?

"Oh. We need a bit of eq and compression. We better upsample it before adding any effects".

Bam. Here's your 192kHz master.
Right. It's a natch. It would be utterly irresistable for the labels.
Old 12th March 2014
  #142
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
I'm not sure you can.
I take a 44.1 kHz file in my DAW and go from the analog out to my mastering chain.
Then I capture in DSD (5.6 mhz).
That's what Sony invented DSD for, archival purposes.
Direct Stream Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know if it's the low pass filters in DSD playback, or what, but it sure sounds better to me.
But better is subjective, right?
C
If the purpose is sound archival and the archival process changes the sound... does anything seem ... oh, you know, a little hinky in that proposition?
Old 12th March 2014
  #143
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.d.finley View Post
Have the PONO makers said what kind of DA convertors they have in the unit?
ESS Sabre 9018 DAC
http://www.whathifi.com/news/neil-yo...nch-march-15th
Old 12th March 2014
  #144
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970 View Post
Aren't you excited when he says its an "artist led initiative to take back sound quality" ?
I'm about as excited when artists backed "Liquid Audio"... the original music download service that was ironclad in artist protection but almost unusable.

I think it's great in theory but if it provides no real benefit.. it's a solution in need of a problem.
Old 12th March 2014
  #145
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
If the purpose is sound archival and the archival process changes the sound... does anything seem ... oh, you know, a little hinky in that proposition?
I don't do sound archival, I master.
I want to change the sound.
Archival would remove my mastering chain from the equation.
Old 12th March 2014
  #146
Here's the problem with this individual's reasoning in a nutshell. Of ABX testing he suggests a scientist concludes:
Quote:
The conclusion: because most people can't tell the difference, there's not really a difference.
No real scientist would say that.

But people with anti-scientific attitudes and a desire to convince people of some conclusion against evidence often rush to put nonsense like that in the mouths of scientists presumably to discredit the whole notion of objective observation and measure.

It's not just baloney. It's baloney used by people who are either illogical, ignorant, or disingenuous. And sometimes all three.
Old 12th March 2014
  #147
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
But better is subjective, right?
C
Well, there it is, right? IS better really subjective?

In some ways yes.. better music, better coffee, better wine.

Is better sound quality subjective when even the individual can't reliably tell the difference?

I actually think this is a GOOD thing though. Many people are being given the opportunity to be educated in digital audio in ways that didn't happen before. I remember hearing people talk about the "evil stair stepping" in digital audio. This brings the debate front and center and allows those who have the interest to more easily learn the truth about digital audio.
Old 12th March 2014
  #148
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Well, there it is, right? IS better really subjective?

In some ways yes.. better music, better coffee, better wine.

Is better sound quality subjective when even the individual can't reliably tell the difference?

I actually think this is a GOOD thing though. Many people are being given the opportunity to be educated in digital audio in ways that didn't happen before. I remember hearing people talk about the "evil stair stepping" in digital audio. This brings the debate front and center and allows those who have the interest to more easily learn the truth about digital audio.
Agreed.
Then people can draw there own conclusions.
But in my studio, I can reliably tell the difference.
Old 13th March 2014
  #149
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
I don't do sound archival, I master.
I want to change the sound.
Archival would remove my mastering chain from the equation.
Ah, so you're doing a format conversion specifically in order to improve the sound to your ear for mastering? Or did I miss something earlier?
Old 13th March 2014
  #150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Unless you're a consumer and just a music fan, I don't understand this statement.

As music makers (which is what I thought this site was for) we already own DA convertors that exceed this unit.

Produce a record at 192kHz. You'll hear it.

or Go here:

Homepage | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads

And buy a few tracks. Plenty of 192kHz 24 bit files up there. Even have the Chili Peppers so you can really hear what his bass sounds like.

Do we really think this device is going to exceed anything created before it?
I almost went down the same road, but I figured he just meant he wanted to hear it vis a vis other high end mobile PB devices. (Not exactly a vibrant market at this time but, you know, entrepreneurs and others would like to recapture that Dre Beats magic -- I even saw articles tying the popularity of Dre Beats bling-o-phones with a potential opening for the Pono.)

But, yeah, I mean, for sure anyone who expects a $400 portable device with 128 GB of storage to sound BETTER than the modern, professional level converters most of us are running probably hasn't thought the whole thing through.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump